Case Law and Judgment (S. 5, Sched.‑‑‑Maintenance to minors)

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 5, Sched.‑‑‑Maintenance to minors‑‑‑Maintenance awarded by Courts below to minor son and daughter of predeceased son of petitioner had been challenged by petitioner (grandfather of minors) contending that he was not liable to pay maintenance to minors as he being an old man was living with his sons and owned only three acres of land‑‑‑Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in orders passed by Courts below awarding maintenance to minors‑‑‑Merely because petitioner (grandfather of minors) was an old man and owned small piece of land could not be a ground to refuse grant of maintenance to minor grandchildren who had a statutory right to get maintenance from their grandfather after death of their father.

Mian Muhammad Hanif for Petitioner.

ABDUL GHANI VS MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ
1994 CLC 444
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J
ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ and others‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8578 of 1993, decided on /01/.
rd August,1993. 

ORDER

Muhammad Ashfaq, a son and Mst. Rafaqat Bibi, a daughter of Muhammad Afzal, a pre‑deceased son of Abdul Ghani petitioner, have been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 p.m. i.e. Rs.300 p.m. for the son and Rs.200 p.m. for the daughter for the past three years and also till the time they attain majority by the learned trial Court (Mr. Habib‑ur‑Rehman, Civil Judge 1st Class) vide order dated 1‑4‑1991. This order has been upheld in appeal filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed by respondent No.4. The petitioner who is a grandfather of the children has filed this Constitutional Petition to challenge the aforementioned judgment and decree.

2. Mian Muhammad Hanif, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner himself is an old man and is living with his sons, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to the children. He has further argued that he owns only three acres of land, therefore, cannot pay maintenance to the minor children. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the two Courts below but the learned counsel has failed to point out any such defect. Merely because the petitioner is an old man and owns lesser land cannot be a ground to refuse the grant of maintenance to the minor grand children of the petitioner, who have a statutory right to get maintenance from their grandfather after the death of their father. The impugned order is quite fair and just. Keeping in view the present socio‑economic circumstances prevailing in the country, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance is even excessive. I see no ground to interfere in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, this writ potition has no force, the same is dismissed in limine. .

H.B.T./A‑499/LPetition dismissed.